Cornett v. Roth’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Honeycutt v. City of Wichita (1992), Rajala v. Allied Corp. (1990)
2 federal appellate · 9 district · 39 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In Re the Attorney General, Stephan · Denison State Bank v. Madeira · George E. Failing Co. v. Cardwell Investment Co. · Mabery v. Western Casualty and Surety Co. · Wilson v. National Refining Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Defendants have shown no prejudice resulting from the alleged premature filing of the notice of appeal. Considering the liberal construction to be given our procedural statutes and rules and the intent of our code of civil procedure and our appellate rules, we find no fatal jurisdictional defects and will proceed to determine the appeal on the merits. See K.S.A. 60-102 ; Supreme Court Rule 203 ( 230 Kan. xcix )." 233 Kan. at 939 -40 , 666 P.2d 1182 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In Failing Co. v. Cardwell Investment Co., 190 Kan. 509 , 376 P.2d 892 (1962), Justice (now Chief Justice) Schroeder stated: ‘The liability of a guarantor upon an obligation cannot be extended by implication, and he should not be held beyond the precise terms of his contract. (Kepley v. Carter 49 Kan. 72 , 30 Pac. 182 ; and Bank v. Bradley, 61 Kan. 615 , 60 Pac. 322 .) The same rule was stated in Dry Goods Co. v. Yearout, 59 Kan. 684 , 54 Pac. 1062 , in the following language: “. . . A contract to pay the debt of another should not be expanded beyond the fair import of its terms. A guarantor, like a surety, is a favorite of the law, and he is not held unless an intention to bind himself is clearly manifested; and his liability is never to be extended beyond the precise terms of his obligation. . . .” (pp. 685, 686.)’ pp. 515-16.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““While there is no invariable rule which determines the existence of a fiduciary relationship it is manifest that there must not only be confidence of one in another, but there must also exist a certain inequality; dependence; weakness of age, mental strength, business intelligence, knowledge of the facts involved, or other conditions, giving to one an advantage over the other.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Olson v. Harshman
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.